Saturday, July 07, 2007

The creation of a permanent, slave underclass is the goal of the open-borders globalists, the global capitalists, and you would think liberals would not only realize this, but be incensed.

Consider the minimum wage as a doctrine. It was created and championed by liberals as a bulwark against in the boundless exploitation of the working and uneducated classes. Forged in the belly of the populist furnace, the minimum wage has been a constant of American society, begrudgingly accepted by conservatives as an unnecessary evil that seems to be … necessary. All the arguments in favor of it bear keenly on the illegal immigration debate, but we never hear Washington liberals publicly grasp it, because race-bait constructions have trumped the true "little guy" populism that used to be the heart and soul of Democrats.

If a man is paid $1.36 per hour to pick cabbage in California, we are told no one would possibly ever be paid $7.40 per hour, because Taco Bell needs those staff people critically. But the argument that "guest workers" are necessary because we must pay someone $1.36 per hour is, essentially, an argument that a slave-underclass must always be preserved. Yet it is frequently beltway Democrats who make the argument in favor of guest workers. This runs opposite of their supposed defense of the little guy and the preservation of social equality. Yet the huge economic disparity that drives workers across the border, polluting law and order and trammeling the sovereignty of territory, violates traditional conservatism as well. A borderless division between massive wealth and massive poverty is not something a true conservative would leave alone without putting an army in the middle.

So, what would happen if we closed the borders and made all cabbage pickin' California farms pay minimum wage to their workers? The profitability of corporate agri-business would go down, the price of cabbage would change by 2 percent, and the lowest classes of American society would all be able to afford Korean imported cars. That is not the desire of globalists, because it damages corporate profits and damages their plans for forced dissolution of American, Mexican and Canadian sovereignty. When we parse the oft-thrummed mantra of necessity for California cabbage pickers, we must hear instead that the globalists need a slave-underclass, denied equal rights, wages, and benefits, to perpetuate the dissolution of sovereignty and the padding of the bottom line. In short, illegal immigration is everything liberals are supposedly against and rabid globalists are for. But additionally, controlling the border would bring back law and order, territorial sovereignty, limiting of entitlement welfare – things traditional conservatives are for.

Why, then, do we have a bunch of Democrats pushing for open borders? Why do we have a bunch of Republicans supporting them?

The forced and obvious conclusion is that the people in Washington are neither Democrats nor Republicans. Some of those species are still found endangered, inhabiting the crevasses in the House of Representatives, but a few score mating pairs is not a lot. But there are no Republicans nor Democrats left in the Executive or the Senate. These people are exclusively globalists, and the next election is important because of that party.

So, the 2008 election will be fought out between globalists on one hand (Romney, Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden and Dodd) and American sovereign parties on the other (Tancredo, Hunter, Paul and Kucinich). It will be a mistake and a mirage for Americans to believe any longer in the Democrat-Republican political theatre, which has been mass packaged by the media for our consumption. These Grammy-winning musicals only exist to play the masses off one another so the globalists, who have dictated the entire top money-tiers of both parties, may forge ahead with their plan to obliterate American sovereignty and crush the peoples beneath their plans for high profits and the global police state. To again gain the privilege of actually having the liberal-conservative contest, populists on both sides must throw out the tops of both parties. What happens in political reality today is a dumb show of convenience, that the puppeteers might install that most beautiful globalist who gets chosen "best actor."

Hope says that real people still vote in the primaries. We, The People, must make a vow not to be influenced by the big-money TV and standard media that seek to install yet another globalist actor candidate. We must hang tough for the real thing. And we must give our money to the Tancredos and the Kuciniches – both of whom are pariahs of their money-elite leadership.

When we look at the illegal-immigration debate through an example of the minimum wage, or other traditionally held positions, we see clearly that liberals in Washington are not liberals and conservatives in Washington are not conservatives. It is time we embrace that fact, recognize that they are treasonous to the sovereignty of the USA and start to work together to throw out all of them, regardless of their façade.

You may think the debate is left vs. right. It isn't. It's top vs. bottom.

June 28, 2007 -- THERE is no need to wait until a new president is elected next year for the great national health-care debate. It's underway right now, disguised as a rou tine extension of an immensely popular, non-controversial 10-year-old program of providing coverage to poor children. In fact, this proposal is the thin edge of the wedge to achieve the longtime goal of government-supplied universal health insurance and the suffocation of the private system.

The Senate Finance Committee was scheduled to mark up this portentous legislation expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) today, but disagreement over the size of the program and how to pay for it forced postponement. Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller's version would triple SCHIP's current five-year cost of $25 billion to $75 billion. That would grant federal largesse to more than just poor kids. An estimated 71 percent of all American children in families of four making as much as $82,000 a year would become eligible, with states also continuing present coverage of adults under SCHIP.

But where to find money to cover the massive cost? Senators of both parties want to raise tobacco taxes, but that well isn't bottomless, as existing taxes have reduced cigarette smoking. Instead, House Democrats want to take money from private elements of Medicare instituted by the Bush administration. The overall effect would make three out of four American children accustomed to relying on government care no matter what course their parents take. In sum, SCHIP turns out to be socialized medicine for "kids" (and many adults).

A principal sponsor of the $75 billion program is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose hand is detected in health-care struggles the past 15 years. After the Clinton administration's sweeping "Hillarycare" failed in 1994, the first lady miniaturized her goals by limiting coverage to poor children. Republicans, led by Sen. Orrin Hatch, had lost their revolutionary zeal after the government shutdown of 1995 and accepted SCHIP as a fallback position at a beginning outlay of $4 billion a year. It was the bargaining chip given President Bill Clinton in return for him signing the Deficit Reduction Act of 1997.

SCHIP over the last decade has been a beloved "kids" program whose faults were overlooked. The federal government has granted waivers to permit 14 states to cover adults under SCHIP, which now cost $5 billion a year. Minnesota led the way, with 92 percent of money spent under the program going to adults.

Sen. Clinton proposed the massive expansion this year, furthering her promise of "step by step" advancement toward universal health care. Her proposal extends SCHIP to families at 400 percent of poverty (or $82,000 a year). Hatch is back again supporting a Democratic program along with Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Finance Committee's ranking Republican. But they want a mere $55 billion, compared with Rockefeller's $75 billion, causing the postponement of today's markup.

The Democratic congressional majority now faces the consequence of its "paygo" mandate to account for higher spending. The Senate's preference for tobacco taxes runs into the reality of reduced smoking typified by a 19 percent decline in New York City. More creative funding comes with Rep. Pete Stark's scheme in the House Ways and Means Committee for slashing the popular private Medicare program. That not only would fund an expanded SCHIP but move toward government monopoly over all health insurance.

An indirect but pervasive effect of Clinton's design would be the impact in families with government-insured children whose parents are covered privately. Would the children become accustomed to Washington taking care of them? Would the adults drop private insurance? The future is now for universal health-care coverage, and President Bush may soon face the decision of whether or not to veto it going into the election year.

PORTSMOUTH — A Russian man attempted to pass off a phony $100 bill at the New Hampshire State Liquor store shortly before 8 p.m. Thursday, according to the store manager, who said a cashier discovered the bill was bogus.

No arrest was made, according to police, but the incident was the talk of the store because Russians are known to be staying in the city ahead of Russian President Vladimir Putin's scheduled visit with President Bush in Kennebunkport, Maine, on Sunday.

Russian diplomat pulled overBush greets Griffin after landing for summit with PutinBush protestors may affect small town businessCounterfeit scams on rise Liquor store manager Mike Smith said the man, accompanied by four other Russian men, attempted to purchase two bottles of Scotch whiskey with the bum $100. The cashier used a special pen to mark the bill to test its authenticity.

"It turned a color that it's not supposed to, and when he saw that, he grabbed the bill back and left," said Smith.

Portsmouth police received a call from the liquor store that the man and his friends were on foot, headed to the nearby Holiday Inn. Police responded to the scene. A dispatch message on the police scanner said diplomatic immunity might be involved.

But Police Lt. Dante Puopolo said that diplomatic immunity was not invoked because police did not make any arrests. "We have no evidence of any kind," he said. "We don't have the $100 bill."

However, he said there are currently Russians staying in town who are entitled to diplomatic immunity. "Their version of the secret service are staying here in Portsmouth," he said. Putin will arrive at the Pease Air National Guard Base on Sunday en route to his summit with Bush.

Approximately a dozen Russian men were congregated in front of the Holiday Inn shortly after the incident Thursday night. One said he spoke no English but indicated he was there in connection with the Putin visit. The men went into the Holiday Inn shortly afterward.